18, 19, 20 March 2013Accolades Boutique Hotel, Midrand, Gauteng, South Africa

18, 19, 20 March 2013Accolades Boutique Hotel, Midrand, Gauteng, South Africa

g ive their v iews at the Nuclear Africa Conference

M a r c h 2 0 1 3

D e f i n i n g S o u t h A f r i c a ’ s n u c l e a r t e c h n o l o g y c a p a b i l i t y

Nuclear energy

• Safe, clean, economic and sustainable

• A viable, reliable solution for Africa

• Local experience, a valuable factor

Page

3 DeputyPresidentKgalemaMotlanthe SA Government committed to nuclear energy

4 MinisterofEnergy,DipuoPeters Energy critical to Africa’s development 5 WelcomemessageNIASAPresident

6 Thebroadnuclearpowerteam Stratek

7 Nuclearpowerissafe,clean,economic andsustainable

11 Nuclearenergy,asolutionforAfrica

15 SmallModularReactors 19 TheGatekeeper: National Nuclear Regulator

20 Bridgingthenuclearconstructiongap Group 5

21 Creatingacleanerworldfortomorrow AECOM 22 PowerGeneration Aveng

23 Morethancapable Sebata

25 Energysolutionsandinnovations Mzesi

27 Aconsistentlyhighqualityservice Wetback 28 Theuseofnuclearenergyhasintensified Rosatom

29 Committedtopartnerships Westinghouse

31 Theobjectiverealitiesofnuclearenergy 33 Energyisadriverofopportunity Murray & Roberts

All material herein, in Nuclear Africa, is copyright protected and may not be reproduced either in whole or in part without the prior written permission of the publisher. The views and opinions of contributors do not necessarily reflect those of Stratek, or any of its principles.

ENDORSED BY THE NSBENational Society of Black Engineers

ADVERTISING SALESRachel Tladi

Cell: +27 (0)79 691 8231eMail: rk@tladistone.co.za

PUBLISHERStratek, Business Strategy Consultants

P.O. Box 74416, Lynnwood RidgePretoria, South Africa, 0040

Cell: +27 (0)82 376 5551eMail: stratek@pixie.co.za

PUBLISHERDr Kelvin Kemm

Stratek Business Strategy ConsultantsCell: +27 (0)82 376 5551

eMail: stratek@pixie.co.za

ASSOCIATE PUBLISHERRachel Tladi

Tladi Stone (Pty) LtdCell: +27 (0)79 691 8231

eMail: rk@tladistone.co.za

EDITORTony Stone

Tladi Stone (Pty) ltdCell: +27 (0)82 055 2937

eMail: tony@tladistone.co.za

LAYOUT & DESIGNMical Jones

Cell: 084 420 1744www.morphadezign.co.za

Email: mical@morphadezign.co.za

NuclearAfrica ContentsOrganised By:

Headl ine Sponsors:

Plat inum Sponsor: Cocktai l Sponsor:

M a r c h 2 0 1 33

D e p u t y P r e s i d e n t

Nuclear power is ideal in this sense, because we can build large nuclear power plants at points around our southern coastline, and potentially elsewhere in the future. South Africa has over 25 years of experience in operating a large nuclear power station. The Koeberg Nuclear Power Station on the Cape west coast has been operated extremely well, and in line with international standards.

The operation of such a nuclear power plant encompasses not only the people on the site itself, but also a significant number of others such as repair and maintenance teams, the nuclear regulatory people, and also the people working at the National Nuclear Waste Repository at Vaalputs in the Northern Cape.It is because of these various activities that over the last quarter of a century South Africa has developed the complex overall systems required to competently operate and maintain a large nuclear power plant. Nuclear safety assurance is most important for public acceptance of the nuclear power industry. Our good record in this respect should be maintained and enhanced as a primary foundation of the industry.Nuclear power plant construction is a major undertaking, which will bring significant economic benefits to local industry.

South African industry has shown itself to be highly competent in the construction of our major coal fired power stations. Our industrial operations, which are related to these areas of development, not only construct and fabricate assemblies for local application, but also export internationally.

There is every reason to have confidence in the belief that South African industry can play a major role in the construction and fabrication of nuclear power plants. In fact it is desirable that South African industry place itself in the position to be able to export nuclear power components internationally.The world nuclear construction family is a reasonably close knit community, and South Africa has the recognised ability to become a well established member of this community. To pursue this endeavour, South African companies will have to forge international partnerships.

Our nuclear professionals, across the board, must communicate and interact with applicable sections of industry, to bring them into the nuclear construction and fabrication sphere. The many aspects of the construction of nuclear power plants is a case of wide scale collaboration of experts, in a wide diversity of specialist fields.

Together with foreign partners, South Africa certainly has the capability of bringing its significant technological talents together, such that we can forge ahead in the development and construction of nuclear power plants, and also to become an important player in the export of nuclear power components and assemblies.

Thegovernmenthascommitteditselftoconstructing an additional 9600MegaWattsof nuclear power, to deliver much neededelectricity into the SouthAfrican electricitygrid.

The government’s decision on nuclear energy constitutes a significant amount of nuclear power to be added to the national electricity supply. Coal will remain the mainstay of South Africa’s electricity supply, because we are blessed with vast coal deposits, and because we have developed a major coal infrastructure for our electricity supply.

However most of our coal, and therefore our coal fired electricity generation, is clustered in the north eastern part of the country, which results in the requirement for very long high voltage electricity supply lines being necessary to transport the electricity across vast stretches of our country. This scenario is strategically unwise over the longer term.

The government has a stated intent of increasing total electricity supply considerably, to satisfy the needs of our country’s growing demands. In striving for this goal, it is strategically sensible not to produce nearly all of our electricity only in the area of the major coalfields. We need to produce electricity in other parts of the country, to spread the electricity production points around the national grid. This is a strategically sensible approach which requires us to use other energy sources in addition to coal.

Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe

GovernmentSAcommitted to Nuclear Energy

M a r c h 2 0 1 3 4

We must hasten to indicate that we were not obliged to do the external INIR mission because we have been operating nuclear plants and reactors for more than 60 years. However, the President Jacob Zuma saw the need to do this as a measure to reassure ourselves as government and the people of South Africa that safety is paramount and to check on whether there are any gaps or challenges to be addressed.

Last month marked the end of another milestone in the South African nuclear industry where the IAEA ended their peer review mission to South Africa. The IAEA has never before visited a country with existing nuclear program. That makes South Africa the first country to have such a visit.

We need to ensure that energy security is pursued as a catalyst for economic growth and prosperity throughout the continent. It is interesting to note that the International Energy Agency has done studies comparing various countries’ GDPs against the level of access to energy, and has found that there is a direct correlation between the two. Therefore, the level of access to energy is an indication of the country’s economic development; hence economic development is not possible without energy – this reality must remain a central pillar of all our discussions and we bear the responsibility to ensure that we contribute to a secure energy future for all.

In August 2012, South Africapublished its National Development Plan,which was subsequently adopted by theAfrican National Congress at its 53rdNationalConferenceheld inMangaung inDecember2012.

The Minister in the Presidency and Chairman of the National Planning Commission, Mr Trevor Manuel, MP, asserted that “the plan sets targets for energy consumption, the carbon intensity of the energy supply, water supply, rail and port capacity”.

Cabinet subsequently adopted the National Infrastructure Plan, which intends to transform the South African economic landscape. In the context of the NDP, and with the vision set about through the National Infrastructure Plan, we have set our country on a course towards meaningful and sustainable development.

And, what is noteworthy is that huge natural energy resources are continuously being discovered in Africa, with the rest of the world taking keen interest in such endowments through increased interest in the continent and concomitant investment. This creates the conditions for growth in Africa but necessitates effective integration within Africa’s emerging markets, and the management thereof. It is my strong belief that for us to see development and growth in the continent, we need to paint a different picture of Africa from being the darkest continent to a beacon of light and hope. As such, to address energy poverty and access, an estimated $25 billion of investment is needed annually until 2030 in order to eliminate the energy backlogs in Africa.

In looking at nuclear energy, South Africa was in the process of finalizing the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2010-2030 when the Fukushima nuclear accident occurred. The IRP envisages 9600MW of additional nuclear capacity by 2030. Subsequent to the accident, the country, through the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) needed to find assurance in terms of the safety of existing installations and the NNR issued a directive to NECSA and Eskom to perform safety re-assessments of SAFARI-1 research reactor and Koeberg nuclear power station.

The safety of nuclear facilities is of paramount importance to the safety of workers, the environment and residents. Since the Fukushima accident, all nuclear installations safety assessment will be closely monitored by regulators. As part of the IRP implementation, the Department of Energy identified the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) document as a tool that can benefit the country by evaluating readiness for the addition of the 9.6 GW into the grid.

It was also very important for South Africa a member of the IAEA to do a country evaluation based on the 19 IAEA INIR milestones.

M i n i s t e r o f E n e r g y

Minister of Energy, Ms Dipuo Peters

to Africa’s development

Welcome everyone to the NuclearAfrica Conference 2013! A specialwelcome to the overseas delegates andthankyouforthecontinuedinterestyouhaveshownintheSouthAfricannuclearindustry.

The South African government has stated that an additional 9600 MW of nuclear power will be added to the South African electricity generation capacity by year 2030. The government also indicated its intention to approach the nuclear power expansion programme on the basis of a fleet of reactors into the future. The South African industry has an opportunity to contribute towards the localization and industrialization ambitions of our country and to grow the country’s technology capabilities in support of the local nuclear power industry. This will also help provide much needed stimulus on the economy of the country especially as far as employment, manufacturing, & skills development are concerned.

The local industry values the importance of international collaborations as it prepares for the nuclear build. Over the last few months the industry has done several Outward Investment Missions to various nuclear power plant vendor countries, to explore possible collaborations on nuclear between South Africa and those countries. One of milestones that have been achieved recently has been the completion by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) of SA’s nuclear infrastructure in February 2013.

The fundamentals for nuclear, since Fukushima, have not changed. The world needs to mitigate against the threat of global warming, and electricity generation from low carbon, cheap and reliable generation sources is critical as we strive to meet the growing global energy demands. Nuclear is one of the viable low carbon base-load electricity generation sources hence it is part of the electricity generation mix in South Africa’s electricity plan, the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP 2010). The world has maintained its confidence on nuclear as this is evident from continued commitments to build new nuclear power plants all over the world, especially in Europe and East Asia.

We look forward to a fruitful and productive engagement in this conference amongst all the Stakeholders present.South Africa.

Kind regards

Dr Rob AdamNIASA President

5

N I A S A

Dr Kelvin Kemm, CEO: Stratek Business Strategy Consultants

M a r c h 2 0 1 3

Welcome by

President

Dr Rob Adam - NIASA President

The Nuclear Africa 2013 conference isserving the purpose of bringing a signifi-cant cross section of nuclear power playerstogether for professional interaction. Thiswill strengthen technological and econom-ic exchange concerning the constructionof the new nuclear power plants for SouthAfrica.

Another aspect covered by the conference is the demystifi-cation of nuclear power. Particular attention has been paid to ensuring that material covered is easily presentable to the general public and to the media.

Nuclear power has always suffered from public misunder-standing. Nuclear science is complex, so it is not surprising that the public gets confused. It is therefore important, for general public participation, that the public is exposed to an accurate portrayal of what is going on with nuclear power development in South Africa.

Worldwide there is a renewed interest in nuclear power, and so one can expect an acceleration in the volume and pace of nuclear power construction in the immediate future. This implies that there will be more international trade and exchange in nuclear power construction, the fabrication of assemblies, fuel fabrication, maintenance system develop-ment and all that which naturally goes with a nuclear power industry.

Domestically in South Africa a spectrum of companies must become involved in the construction and fabrication of nu-clear assemblies and components. These companies need to be able to view a future with enough production volume to make it worth their while to invest in the production infra-structure required to produce goods to the required nuclear standards.

For this scope of activities a broad spectrum of cooperation is required.

The Nuclear Africa 2013 conference is aimed at providing the platform required to target the broad spectrum of objec-tives needed to advance the nuclear power programme in South Africa.

The Broad NuclearPOWER TEAM

M a r c h 2 0 1 3

N i a s a

Dr Kelvin Kemm, CEO: Stratek Business Strategy Consultants

6

President

M a r c h 2 0 1 37

A n d r e w K e n n y

Nuclear powerissafe,clean,economicandsustainable

Andrew Kenny: Energy Analyst

If the world were ruled by rationalconcern for human welfare and theenvironment, nuclear power would bethe first choice for baseload electricity.Nuclearpowerhasby far thebest safetyrecordofanyenergysource.

Over fifty years, it has proved to be clean and economic, often providing a country’s cheapest electricity. It is sustainable indefinitely since there are such vast amounts of uranium and thorium in the Earth’s ground and oceans. It has been a great success and now provides 14% of the world’s electricity. But it should have been a greater success, providing more electricity. It should now be the obvious choice for new power stations around the world.

But this is not the case in many countries, and the reasons are completely irrational and based on wrong perceptions. Nuclear, which is in fact very safe, is perceived to be dangerous; it has the least waste problem of any energy source yet is perceived to have an insoluble waste problem; it is very economic yet is perceived to be very expensive.

First consider safety. The unrivalled safety record of nuclear power was confirmed in a spectacular way in 2011. Yet once nuclear power had proved itself to be far safer than all alternatives, including coal, gas, hydro, wind and solar, it was denounced by certain governments, notably Germany as being unsafe.

Safety, like all aspects of electricity generation, must be considered over the full energy cycle, which includes the mining of ores for fuel and structural materials, the processing of the fuel, construction and manufacture, operation, waste disposal and decommissioning. Figure 1 below shows the number of accidents in the energy sector between 1969 and 2000 that killed five people or more.

Worldwide there is a renewed interest in nuclear power, and so one can expect an acceleration in the volume and pace of nuclear power construction in the immediate future. This implies that there will be more international trade and exchange in nuclear power construction, the fabrication of assemblies, fuel fabrication, maintenance system development and all that which naturally goes with a nuclear power industry.

Domestically in South Africa a spectrum of companies must become involved in the construction and fabrication of nuclear assemblies and components. These companies need to be able to view a future with enough production volume to make it worth their while to invest in the production infrastructure required to produce goods to the required nuclear standards.For this scope of activities a broad spectrum of cooperation is required.

The Nuclear Africa 2013 conference is aimed at providing the platform required to target the broad spectrum of objectives needed to advance the nuclear power programme in South Africa.

M a r c h 2 0 1 3 8

A n d r e w K e n n y

Nuclear powerissafe,clean,economicandsustainable

spent fuel in its cooling pond, overheated for the same reason. Four units were badly damaged.

What was the result of this extreme nuclear accident? There was massive disruption to people’s lives caused by forced evacuations. But the number of people who were killed by the radiation was zero, and the number of people likely to be killed in future is also zero. No harm to human health has ever been seen below 100 mSv (millisieverts) and the worst radiation dose received by any Japanese citizen was 23 mSv. Most people in the affected zone received 1 mSv or less (Natural background radiation is about 2.5 mSv a year, on average.)

So the “nuclear disaster” at Fukushima in 2011, like the “disaster” at Three Mile Island in the US in 1979, did not kill anybody, and will not kill anybody.

And it should not have happened at all. The 2011 tsunami was the worst on record but not the worst in history. Japanese geologists had told of worse tsunamis in the last thousand years. All Japanese reactors should have been designed against them, which would have been very easy to do: simply mount diesel generators and fuel tanks on plinths higher than any tsunami water level of the last thousand years.

Impactofirrationaldecisions

Yet once nuclear power had demonstrated to the entire world its inherent safety at Fukushima, the German government, in a fit of political madness, decided to phase out its nuclear power stations. In Germany, nuclear power was the cheapest, cleanest and safest source of electricity, providing about 25% of the total. Eight out of 17 reactors have now been shut down, and the remaining are due to be shut down by 2022. There has been a hugely expensive attempt to replace them with wind and solar power. The inevitable result has been a dramatic increase in electricity prices. The real price of household electricity has risen 61% from 1978 to 2012, and is now 0.26 Euro/kWh (R3.15/kWh). Up to 800,000 Germans cannot pay their electricity bills and are forced into “energy poverty”. German industries, such as ThyssenKrupp the steelmaker, Norsk Hydro the aluminium producer, Aurubis the copper producer, and GEA with its zinc plant are shutting down, reducing operations, or relocating to other countries because of the rising electricity prices and increasingly insecure electricity supply. Because solar and wind are so unreliable, Germany is having to build a large number of new coal stations to make up the shortfall from the nuclear shut-down. In August 2012, Chancellor Angela Merkel opened a new 2,200 MW coal station near Cologne. By coal standards it is “clean” and “only” emits about 13 million tons of CO2 a year. The nuclear phase-out has led to no reduction in greenhouse gases but rather a slight increase. The nuclear phase-out has been bad for the environment, bad for industry, bad for the economy, bad for stable electricity supply and disastrous for the poor.

The single such accident in nuclear power was at Chernobyl in 1986, caused primarily by a very bad reactor design that would not have been allowed in the West.

Continualsafetyimprovements

Since 2000, nuclear has continued to improve its safety record over all other energy sources. In these years thousands of people in total have been killed in accidents in coal, gas, oil, hydro and wind. Almost all of these accidents have been ignored by the media whereas every tiny incident in nuclear power makes headlines.

Fukushima

The most dramatic vindication of nuclear safety came in 2011. For years opponents of nuclear power had warned us of the catastrophic consequences of a bad nuclear accident. On 11 March 2011 in Japan, precisely such a bad accident happened. The worst earthquake and tsunami on record, which means over the last 150 years or so, struck the north east coast of Japan. About 16 000 people were killed by the natural disaster. 13 old fashioned Japanese nuclear reactors received its full destructive blast. All of them shut down safely to “hot shutdown”, which means that all fission stopped. But at one station, Fukushima Daiichi, which had six old boiling water reactors, designed in the 1960s, things went badly wrong after that.

Three of its reactors were running at the time. They all shut down safely. But when a nuclear power reactor at 100% power shuts down, it still produces about 5% power because of the heat from the radioactive fission products. This heat must be removed over several months. This is easily done by pumping water through the reactors. But, at Fukushima, the tsunami drowned the power supply to the pumps. They stopped. The reactors overheated and were severely damaged, releasing radiation. Another unit, which was shutdown but had fresh

1119

397

135105

11 10

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Coal Oil Natural gas LPG Hydropower Nuclear

Number of Accidents with at least 5 Deaths in Full Energy Chain

1969 to 2000 Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with Those from Other Energy Sources. OECD 2010. ISBN 978-92-64-99122-4

Figure 1: Accidents in the energy sector that killed five people or more between 1969 and 2000.

M a r c h 2 0 1 39

A n d r e w K e n n y

Nuclear tends to have higher capital costs than coal but there is no inherent reason for this. In the past, nuclear plants have been plagued by regulatory delays and the fact that every plant was a one-off, of a unique design, and therefore very costly. With proper management of regulation and with a program of standardised designs (such as the Westinghouse AP100, or the French EPR, or modern Russian or Japanese designs), nuclear capital costs will come down and down. This is already happening in China, with nuclear capital costs estimated at $3/watt or less.

Sustainability

Nuclear power is sustainable indefinitely, for millions of years. This is because of the enormous amounts of uranium and thorium on our planet. Because uranium is so cheap, the mining houses have barely bothered to scratch the surface in prospecting for it, and so figures for the estimated recoverable reserves are but a tiny proportion of the real reserves on earth. The oceans contain dissolved uranium, and the Japanese have already shown how to extract it; and at the right price (about $200/lb) it would be commercial. Since uranium extracted from the sea will be replaced by rivers and undersea volcanoes, this will be for practical purposes a renewable energy source. Breeder reactors, already proven, can multiply the effective reserves 50 times over by converting unusable nuclear materials (“fissionable”) into usable materials (“fissile”). Thorium is four times as abundant as uranium, and in many ways is a better nuclear fuel. We shall never run out of nuclear fuel.

Foodforthought

Every energy technology, without exception, including solar and wind, produces “deadly” waste that lasts for millions of years. School science shows why this is so and why it is not a problem. A “deadly” material is one that can kill under the right conditions. But every element in the world can kill under the right conditions. Oxygen, nitrogen, lead, chrome, cadmium, copper etc can all kill. Every element, unless it is radioactive,

Alternativesenergysources

Mother Nature has made solar, wind and nuclear power very good for certain applications and very bad for others. The nuclear force is the strongest force in nature, which means that a small amount of material can produce a large amount of electricity very reliably, with minimum disruption to the environment. Solar and wind are the opposite, being very dilute and intermittent, excellent for a wide range of small applications but extremely expensive and environmentally disruptive for large scale electricity supply. This is why solar and wind, over thirty years, have been a complete failure in providing grid electricity around the world.

Electricity supply may be roughly divided into three categories:

1.Smallscalesupply.A small amount of electricity, typically stored in a battery, can dramatically improve the lives of people not connected to the electricity grid by powering lighting, radio, TV, cellphones, computers and small appliances in schools, clinics and households. For such use solar and wind are excellent, and nuclear is useless.

2.Gridelectricity:peakingThis is to provide large amounts of electricity for short periods of time, at short notice, during peak demand. For this solar and wind are useless (because they are so unreliable) and so is nuclear power (because it takes a day or more to start up a nuclear power reactor). Gas turbines are good but expensive (because in South Africa they run on diesel). Pumped storage is good too, and more economic, with high capital costs but low running costs.

3.Gridelectricity:BaseloadThis is to provide bulk electricity 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The electricity must be reliable or else it is useless (or indeed worse than useless). For baseload electricity supply, wind and solar are useless, because they are so unreliable. Nuclear is excellent, the most economic, clean, safe and sustainable source.

Nuclearenergyproductioncosts

France, which gets over 75% of its electricity from nuclear, has about the lowest electricity prices in Europe. Denmark, which has the world’s highest fraction of wind power, has about the highest prices in Europe. Figure 2 shows the production costs of electricity from different energy sources in the US. These do not include capital costs (which are difficult to compare for plants of different ages).

Despite the energy revolution in the US in the “fracking” of shale gas, which has seen a dramatic decline in gas prices, gas is still far more expensive than nuclear power for electricity generation.

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

US Electricity Production Costs (cents/kWh)Source: Ventyx Velocity Suite

Oil

Gas

Coal

Nuclear

Figure 2 Electricity production costs in the US.

M a r c h 2 0 1 3 10

A n d r e w K e n n y

costs (including damage to human health and the environment); massive, wasteful, inefficient use of the Earth’s resources (wind turbines use ten times more concrete and steel per kWh than nuclear stations); the killing of eagles and other large, endangered raptors; and extreme unreliability.

The load factor or capacity factor of a power plant shows how much electricity it actually produces compared to its theoretical capacity. If a plant has a nameplate capacity of 100 MW but over a period produces 70 MW on average, its load factor is 70%. The table below shows the load factors of wind and nuclear in various countries.

Thenuclearadvantage

Nuclear power also has the huge advantage that it can be sited anywhere, unlike coal, hydro, solar or wind, which is especially important in South Africa. A typical large Eskom coal station burns about 16 million tons a year, far too much for the coal to be transported any distance. So the coal stations must be built at the coal fields, which are all in the north east interior of the country. But South Africa has a growing demand for electricity in the coastal regions, such as Cape Town and Durban. Because nuclear fuel is so tiny in mass (Koeberg, at 1 800 MW capacity, uses about 40 tons of fuel a year), it is easy to transport and so nuclear stations can be located wherever they are wanted, which is typically close to centres of demand and cooling by sea water.

Inconclusion

Sixty-four new nuclear power reactors are in construction around the world and another 160 are on order or in planning. Most of these are in Asia and Eastern Europe. Western Europe and the US are lagging, purely because of irrational and ideological reasons, such as have been most vividly shown in Germany. South Africa should be rational, and choose nuclear power as the safest and cleanest source of energy we know, and as the best producer of economic, reliable electricity.

lasts forever - until the end of time. We are all now breathing in oxygen atoms that were breathed out by Julius Caesar and Tyrannosaurus Rex. Under the bonnet of your car is a lead battery. The lead is toxic and lasts forever - for billions of years. There is no plan for a repository to store this lead until the end of time and no plan to recycle it until the end of time. Does this mean that the lead battery in your car threatens future generations? Of course not! We shall just manage the lead responsibly from generation to generation.

Solar power produces toxic wastes, such as cadmium and lead, that last forever. Wind power does the same. Neither is much of a problem. But nuclear wastes are even less of a problem because they are tiny in mass and become less dangerous with time. They are easy to store safely, presenting no danger to man or the environment.

Myth,fallacyandtheGreenagenda

In Europe, the USA and elsewhere, for reasons of green ideology and political fashion, billions of dollars have been invested in “renewable” energy, especially wind turbines, for grid electricity. The result has been, without exception, calamitous. To see why, you have only to look at the graphs of electricity production from various energy sources in the UK that are put out by NETA (New Electricity Trading Arrangements). They can be found at www.bmreports.com Britain has over 4 000 wind turbines with a total capacity of over 6 000 MW but the graphs show their total production ramping up and down in a wild and unpredictable way, and often producing less than 50 MW in total. It is a complete fallacy that “the wind is always blowing somewhere” (meaning blowing strongly enough to produce useful energy).

A graph of the combined wind power production of Ireland, the UK, France, Spain, Germany, Austria and Denmark shows the same pattern. Their combined wind capacity is over 65 000 MW and they cover a wider geographical spread than South Africa, yet the wind production ramps up and down in the same wild way, and on 3 September 2010 the total production was 2,000 MW. Some other generator, nearly always a fossil fuel one, and usually a gas turbine, has to ramp down and up to match the violent fluctuations of the wind. This means that it runs inefficiently, using more fuel than it would use in steady, efficient operation and so releasing more carbon dioxide. It is another fallacy to say that a kWh of wind power displaces a kWh of fossil power.

The characteristics of wind power for grid electricity are: gigantic size (you need huge machines to capture the dilute energy); coercion (nobody would choose to buy wind electricity because it is so expensive and unreliable, so they have to be forced to buy it); huge operating subsidies enforced by government (nobody would invest one cent in a wind farm without them); very high direct costs and very high external

Wind NuclearDenmark 23.0 - France 20.4 77.7Germany 17.0 83.3Portugal 22.7 -Spain 23.3 84.2Sweden 20.3 77.3UK 24.0 75.2USA 24.1 93.2

Table 1. Load Factors (Capacity Factors) for Wind & Nuclear in Selected Countries

Average %: 2005 – 2009. “Electricity Outlook 2011”. IEA

M a r c h 2 0 1 311

A n d r e w K e n n y

In looking at the numbers,energy-related information forAfrica, about installed systems,potentialsources,transmissionanddistribution grid penetration, andcurrent use is scarce. The presentstatus of electrification, in termsof population served by electricity,is given in Table 1, as taken from2010 OECD–IEA data [1]. Thiscovers grid-connected as well asoff-griddecentralised installations,usuallydieselgenerators.

Nuc

Geert de Vries, Nuclear Energy Consultant

PUBLISHED DATA • OECD - IEA 2010

North Africa

Total NOT Electrified

Total Electrified

Urban Electrified

Rural Electrified

Total NOT Electrified

Urban Population

Urban Electrified

Urban NOT electrified

Rural Population

Rural Electrified

Rural NOT Electrified

Total Population

Total Electrified

Total NOT Electrified

million

%

%

%

%

million

million

million

million

million

million

million

million

million

2

98.8

99.6

98.4

1.2

56

56

0.2

111

109

1.8

167

165

2.0

585

30.5

62.5

12.0

70

308

193

116

533

64

469

842

257

585

587

41.8

68.8

26.7

58

362

249

113

647

173

474

1009

422

587

All AfricaSub-SaharanAfrica

M a r c h 2 0 1 3 12

G e e r t D e V r i e s

its 422 million people that are electrified, with attendant negative impact on the quality of living and business productivity.

Power plants, transmission lines and distribution networks across Africa - most of which were erected in the 1950s and 1960s - operate today at just a fraction of installed capacity due to insufficient maintenance and lack of modernization. Meanwhile there are a further 587 million, practically all in Sub-Saharan Africa, who are not electrified. Their source of energy is mainly the old renewable standby, wood, collected at great cost of time and effort thereby destroying productivity in other directions, or bottled gas and cooking oils obtained through elaborate but under-capable and unreliable distribution channels.

Across the continent, wars and militancy have left power generation and distribution infrastructure disrupted, damaged or destroyed. For example, Sierra Leone’s Bumbuna hydroelectric project was nearly complete when civil war disrupted construction. Most of Liberia’s power plants and transmission lines were so damaged or destroyed during its long civil war that the national electricity company estimates it will take several years and huge financial outlay to achieve restoration to the level at which they were before the war. The situation is similar in Angola and Mozambique.

Countries with gas/diesel/coal fired power plants often find themselves with no electricity whenever there is disruption in supply of these fossil fuels due to either high fuel cost or fuel supply logistics, or disruption of generation or distribution infrastructure. And, when a drought strikes, countries that are dependent on hydroelectricity resort to rationing their power supplies – bearing in mind that droughts can last for long periods of time.

The data are not clean. Calculating Africa’s totals from the North and Sub-Saharan Africa data delivers numbers slightly different from those calculated from the All Africa data. The estimated error for Sub-Saharan Africa numbers is around 5 million. Essentials are clear, however, as shown in Fig. 1 (colour coding as indicated in Table 1), 69% of Sub-Saharan Africa has no access to electricity vs 1% in North Africa. Worldwide, 19.5% have no access. There is a huge gap between Sub-Saharan Africa and World average.

PresentSituationNorth Africa (the countries along the Mediterranean) is nearly fully electrified, but suffers from poor infrastructure or severe war damage or both, or from disruption in supply of diesel and gas through either production or distribution disruption. Africa is rich in energy sources. But it exports crude and gas while power blackouts are a regular scene in the cities, towns and villages of

lear energy, a solution for Africa

Fig 1 North Africa and SubSahara Africa electrification

M a r c h 2 0 1 313

G e e r t D e V r i e s

• The density of the conglomeration in capita/km2

This influences the modality to be used for the distribution. • Guidelines indicating the graded types of distribution modality applicable for local population density. Modalities choices are: on-grid with wide distribu- tion networks, off-grid but on a local distribution network spanning a limited area (a remote province, down to one or more villages), and individual supply per abode or abode cluster.

TypesofGeneration

DieselandGasTurbinesThere is considerable experience with diesel generators, but the unstoppable escalation of the price of diesel and fuel oil makes DG and GT more and more unaffordable. This cost factor is eliminating these energy sources from the nations’ menu for base load supply. They are however excellent as standby for peak loads, and deserve a place in the guidelines mentioned above for that reason.

RenewablesThe choice of renewables on offer is wind, and solar PV and CSP for electricity generation.

Wind and solar are the “free” renewables that are currently in favour. They are of course no more free than conventional energies. Coal, uranium, oil and gas are free in the ground but we have to extract, convert, and deliver the usable energy to a consumer, all of which have costs. Machinery is used to do this. Wind and solar energies are orders of magnitude more dilute and have to be harvested by different machinery. In the case of wind and solar, the cost of harvesting and generating exceeds the combined cost of scraping/mining/drilling and then burning of fossil fuels, as is clear from the subsidies that are required to bring wind and solar into play, subsidies that are ultimately paid by the taxpayer and the consumer (who already contributed as taxpayer). This picture is unlikely to change, particularly in view of the fact that wind machinery has a lifetime closer to 12-15 years than the advertised 15-20 years. Conventional plant runs 40-60 years.The irony with renewables is that the world’s scientists are now rediscovering that CO2 emission need not be curbed,

South Africa present situation – in round numbers - is a supply of 40 000 MW for 50 million people on 1 200 000 km2 land area. This implies that generation is 0.8 kW/person and 0.33 kW/ha. Urban supply points generally allow up to 60A at 220V or 13.2 kW/connection. Industrial supply allowances vary widely.

IncorrectprioritiesNigeria for example, has a number of newly built gas fired power plants which are not producing electricity yet because Nigeria, an exporter of gas and crude, is yet to supply gas or diesel to these plants. In Algeria, the well developed gas pipeline network from Algeria to Europe guarantees natural gas supply to Europe, while its urban and rural residents alike suffer scarcity of cooking gas because domestic distribution is not developed. Other countries have similar or equally disabling situations.

Misplaced priority rather than lack of funds has been identified as a major reason for the bad shape of Africa’s electricity infrastructure.

In short, Africa faces a massive electrification challenge, both on the physical and on the political front.

NewapproachesneededThese scenarios underscore the need for a new, possibly different approach to electricity generation. The conventional way is to extend the grid network and connect to reliable supplies in own country or neighbouring countries. Extending the transmission grid and LV distribution networks can work in urban areas but quickly becomes uneconomical for low density rural areas because its cost cannot be recovered from low consumption rural populations. This indicates a need for a graded approach which adapts to the demographics. Criteria to be applied when electrifying rural areas shall be based on the following factors: • The size of the local population to be served. • The targeted installed power per capita. South Africa’s installed capacity of 0.8 kW/ capita (see above) covers the requirements of its residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural sectors. It is estimated that rural areas which are being electrified for the first time, will initially require no more than 0.1 to 0.2 kW/capita. Popula- tion size and targeted kW/capita determines the power requirement for an area. • Guidelines indicating the type of generation suitable for various levels of power requirements. Types of generation from which to select will be diesel generators (DG), gas turbines (GT, a range of technologies) running on fuel oil or gas, conventional (small) coal, various renewable sources (wind, solar), and small modular nuclear reactors. Solar thermal, biomass and bio fuel technologies are not listed here as they are basically used for heating and transportation, which is another scope of supply, not discussed here.

M a r c h 2 0 1 3 14

G e e r t D e V r i e s

scope for wind. Small wind then earns a place in the guidelines mentioned above.

SolarSolar PV in Germany achieved a capacity factor of 7.5% for the period 2000-2011, and after 12 years - and an investment of 130 billion Euros – managed to contribute 3.12% to Germany’s electricity in 2011. There is better sun incidence in Africa, and therefore solar PV will probably achieve double the German capacity factor, say 15%, maybe 20%. But with its stated life time of 20 years, it falls into the same performance bracket as wind.

Therefore, like wind, solar PV is not suited for application in grid systems, but can play excellent roles as “small solar” for decentralised applications in the kW range in remote sunny areas. Communication towers, farm security systems, small villages, housing clusters, etc come to mind. Small solar also belongs in the guidelines mentioned above.

CoalandNuclearCoal and Nuclear are the ideal baseload energy generators, with stable output for months on end. Nuclear is the very candidate to supply grid systems. Typical nuclear generation capacities now on offer are between 1 000 and 1 600 MW per unit. Coal units range from 500 to 700 MW. This stability of large scale supply represents the other extreme compared to the unstable renewables which are constructed in very small capacities of kW size up to a few MW, and require bundling into large arrays, occupying large land areas, in order to make a meaningful contribution.

Building and operating large nuclear stations is not currently an option for most African nations at the present stage of their development. Large nuclear stations need to be placed near large bodies of water such as the ocean or large dams. In addition power sources of 1 000 or 2 000 MW are just too large to switch in and out of many African grids at their present stages of development.

On the other hand, ‘small nuclear’ in the range 50 to 200 MW, of the intrinsically safe type now under development and construction worldwide (in China, USA, Russia, and until 2010 in South Africa) are suitable for Africa, because they fit superbly into the scenario: Off-grid but on a local distribution network spanning a limited area, covered under the Guidelines indicated above. It is regrettable that the one African country that could do so, abandoned the attempt to take up the “Africa faces a massive electrification challenge”.

References:[1] http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energydevelopment/

accessto electricity [2] Bundes Ministerium fuer Umwelt - AGEE Stat ee_zeitreihe Juli 2011

[3] http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~dcurtis/NETA.html

because it is a near non-contributor to climate change. There are around a dozen cosmic, solar system, and local earth planetary mechanisms at work that cause many cycles varying from 100 000 to 11 years, whose interference with each other cause the climate patterns we experience.

WindAnalysis of the results [2] of the hardest trying and technologically most advanced nation attempting wind, namely Germany, shows that wind achieved an average capacity factor over the period 1990-2011 of 16.4%. This must be compared to conventional plant achieving 80-95% as a matter of routine. After 22 years, Germany’s wind park of 29 075 MW in 2011 had three-quarter the capacity of SA’s total capacity (39 909 MW) and delivered 46 500 GWh, less than one-fifth of SA’s 248 914 GWh, and only 7.64% of Germany’s own total electricity output (608 500 GWh) [2]. And Germany is building brown coal stations to avoid its industries falling silent. Wind is the proverbial interrupted supply: analysis of the UK wind park performance for the 7-month period April-October 2012 [3] showed that 43% of the period it produced less than 10% of its rated output, and for 68% of the time it produced less than 20%. This means that 68% of the time conventional power plant had to step in to deliver the power that wind was not delivering.

Only one half hour period in the whole seven months did the UK wind park achieve 56% of its rated output? Its capacity factor for that period was 15.8%. No economy can afford to be hobbled with this type of performance.

The intermittent nature of wind plays havoc with the stability of grids and with the economy of the conventional plant that has to step in at odd hours. Major efforts are underway in Europe to design systems that can balance the grids constantly when large supply swings occur, to avoid system crashes and large area blackouts. These issues have not been solved, and look unlikely to be solved, without full backup by conventional plants, and without massive additional investments that were never contemplated when the decision was made to enjoy “free” wind.We have not even mentioned that wind’s house-load (power used by a dozen systems on the wind tower when waiting for wind) has been measured to consume 50% and more of the energy produced under load. Wind operators are frequently careful to not publish their electricity account.A rich developed country like Germany may decide to experiment with its wellbeing on a national scale, but these experiences disqualify wind as the generator of choice for Africa in gridded systems. Developing nations cannot afford to spend their scarce resources on a technology with this track record.

On the other hand, “small wind” in the kW range and accompanied by energy storage (batteries or pumped storage to water tower) to counter the disadvantage of its interrupted supply, can be a great technology for small villages or large farms. Coupled to a local distribution network and a sophisticated control system, there is

M a r c h 2 0 1 315

Prof Eben Mulder and Frederik Rei tsma

portant non-electric applications such as seawater desalina-tion, district heating and heat for industrial processes.

South Africa is currently the only African country with nu-clear power plants (the two unit Koeberg power station).

Nuclear power offers many benefits. It can help to improve energy security, reduce the impact of volatile fossil fuel prices and make economies more competitive. These are the main reasons which countries tend to give for wanting to introduce nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy also has im-

Fig. 1: The Nuclear “Newcomer countries” in Africa (adapted from http://www.iaea.org/)

ThereisnoquestionthatAfricadesperatelyneedspowertostimulateeconomicgrowthand to start benefiting from many potential large mining projects throughout thecontinent.Manyof these projects arenot getting the go-aheaddue to the fact thatelectricitycannotbeguaranteed.OneoptionconsideredbyAfricancountries is theintroductionofNuclearPowerPlantsaspartoftheirenergymix.

M a r c h 2 0 1 3 16

Prof Eben Mulder and Frederik Rei tsma

Many other African countries have already made statements to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vi-enna of their intention to introduce nuclear power plants for the first time. These so-called “Newcomer countries” are identified in Figure 1.

Barrierstoentry

Many barriers have to be overcome when nuclear power plants are introduced for the first time. One is the large fi-nancial commitment needed for such a program. South Arica will be adding 9600MWe of nuclear over the next 20 years, as announced in the Integrated Resource Plan. Such a po-tential nuclear fleet will involve a level of investment un-precedented in South Africa. The large commercial nuclear power plants offerings available today need investments in the region of $10-$20billion and can only be introduced into countries which already have substantial installed genera-tion capacity with the associated large grid. Where does this leave many of the Newcomer countries in Africa which do not possess these large grid capacities? (see Table 1).

Thesmallmodularsolution

The perfect fit for nuclear roll out in Africa.

Frederik Reitsma , Steenkampskraal Thorium Limited

Prof Eben Mulder , Steenkampskraal Thorium Limited

Table 1: Newcomer grid sizes

Egyot 24.67

Ghana 1.99

Kenya 1.71

Morocco 6.16

Nigeria 5.90

Sudan 2.34

Tunisia 3.65

Algeria 10.38

Grid Capacity (GWe)

Country

M a r c h 2 0 1 317

Prof Eben Mulder and Frederik Rei tsma

Many of the SMRs have enhanced safety features and simpli-fied designs. The high temperature gas cooled reactors (HT-GCR) are of particular interest for co-generation and proc-ess heat applications, due to the availability of high quality heat. In the light of the Fukushima Daiichi LWR accident the availability of the meltdown-proof small modular pebble bed reactor is particularly important. Features such as the fact that the reactor will shut itself down and dissipate the decay heat without any human interaction, or active systems, in the case of a station black-out; and the containment of the radioactive fission products in the coated particle fuel under any credible condition, has been illustrated in reactors and experiments. These safety credentials should greatly assist in securing public acceptance of nuclear.

The Th-100 is a small-sized pebble bed reactor which is currently being developed in South Africa by Steenkamp-skraal Thorium Limited (STL). It has a 100 MW thermal power rating and it produces energy in the form of steam (see Figure 2). The steam can be used to drive a commercial off-the-shelf steam turbine set to generate up to 40MW of electricity. Alternatively the steam can be used in process heat applications such as in petrochemical plants and cement factories, and can also be used for desalination.

Steenkampskraal Thorium Limited (STL) has completed the feasibility study and the concept design. The design of the Th-100 reactor has been based on technology that is avail-able today and therefore can be deployed within the next 8 to 10 years. STL now focuses on the commercialization of this technology.

Importantly, this reactor can operate with equal efficiency using either a uranium or thorium-based fuel cycle. The pro-liferation risk is reduced by using thorium instead of uranium which produces plutonium in the waste stream. The waste from thorium is also short-lived, since negligible amounts of minor actinides are produced during the fission process, and decay times are determined by the fission products. Furthermore, the Th-100 can be deployed as an incinerator of the plutonium produced in a typical LWR fuel cycle. This provides the opportunity for a perfect symbiosis whereby the most problematic portion of high-level waste produced in existing LWRs can be used as fuel in a Th-100. The waste produced in existing fuel cycles can be incinerated, whilst the waste produced from the Th-100 is dramatically benign in comparison to the existing uranium cycle waste.

Using small modular reactors provides the ideal basis for countries in Africa, with relatively small and segmented power grids, to enter the nuclear market with a much smaller capital investment cost. Such an approach would see them building up a grid with multiple small units to stabilise the

Small modular power units are the answer. These smaller power units provide a perfect match for smaller grids, and require capital investments of only $200-$400 million. Small modular reactor (SMR) units can be added as and when needed, in more affordable increments. Also, with construc-tion times of 2 to 3 years as opposed to build times of 6-10 years for traditional large nuclear plants, it makes planning much easier and reduces the financing costs substantially.

Other factors also favour SMR’s. The large commercial LWR (light water reactor) offered needs a massive amount of water for cooling and therefore most countries in Africa without a coastline are presently excluded from using nu-clear power. The world has recognised the market potential of SMRs and over 30 designs are today pursued, varying from light water reactors, heavy water reactors, liquid metal cooled reactors and high temperature gas cooled reactors. The US Department of Energy supports SMR through a $450 million five-year cost-share agreement contributing to the first-of-a-kind engineering, design certification, and licens-ing, for small modular reactors in the United States. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has also sup-ported activities on SMRs over a number of years.

Fig.2: Th-100 Main Reactor Vessel

M a r c h 2 0 1 3 18

Prof Eben Mulder and Frederik Rei tsma

grid and provide distributed power where needed. Small modular nuclear reactors can be produced to be cost-effec-tive, price competitive and with high load factors. Small modular pebble bed reactors therefore provide countries in Africa with a stepping stone to enter a nuclear power future.

• “The Future of Nuclear Energy Post-Fukushima” Speaker: Mr Yukiya Amano, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) made on

Friday 8th February 2013 hosted by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS); and the Opening remarks of Dr Jakkie Cilliers, Executive Director (ISS).• Information from the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Technology Development initiative of the Nuclear Power Technology Development Section of the Interna- tional Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna; http:// www.iaea.org/• http://www.thorium100.com/

Fig.3: Th-100 General Building Layout

Thorium,analternativenuclearfuel

Thorium is a natural occurring slightly radioactive element found in the earth’s crust. It is at least 3 to 4 times more abundant than uranium and can be used as a fertile material in nuclear reactors. Fertile means thorium can be used as a source to produce fissionable fuel such as U-233. For this the extra neutrons coming from the fission process are used. The use of thorium has been illustrated in different High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors (HTR) in Germany and the USA. HTR’s have specific characteristics that make the use of thorium attractive. The concept was also illustrated in the Shippingport light water reactor in the USA and in Candu type reactors (Canada and elsewhere). Thorium as a basis for plutonium incineration also shows good potential, especially since no more plutonium is bred from the thorium component of the fuel. Furthermore very little long-lived transuranic elements are produced so that the radioactivity of the spent fuel is several orders of magnitude lower than fuel from the uranium cycle, once the much shorter-lived fission products have decayed. South Africa has significant thorium reserves at the Steenkampskraal site; 78 km north of Vanrhynsdorp.

M a r c h 2 0 1 319

The National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) is a public entity which was established and is governed in terms of Section 3 of the National Nuclear Regulator Act, (Act no. 47 of 1999). Our job is to protect people, property and the environment against radiological risks and nuclear damage associated with the use of nuclear technology in South Africa. This we do through the establishment and enforcement of safety standards and regulatory practices.

To achieve this, the NNR monitors and enforces compliance to regulatory requirements over a diverse range of facilities and actions for the achievement of safe operating conditions; prevention of nuclear accidents; and mitigation of nuclear accident consequences. The facilities and actions currently under the regulatory control of the NNR include the safety of the Koeberg nuclear power station, the Pelindaba research and production facilities, the Vaalputs nuclear waste repository and several mining and minerals processing facilities. Naturally, any new facility will fall under the regulatory control of the NNR.

The regulation of nuclear activities at the NNR is performed by two technical divisions, namely Standards, Authorisations, Reviews and Assessments (SARA) and Compliance Assurance and Enforcement (CAE).

CoreBusinessThe regulation of nuclear activities at the NNR is performed by two technical divisions, namely Standards, Authorisations, Reviews

must address licensing aspects in the design of any facilities concerned and safety in the way the facility will be constructed, commissioned, operated, maintained and decommissioned. The conditions of authorisation also oblige the holder of the authorisation to provide a demonstration of compliance through the submission of routine and non-routine reports. Standard conditions included in a nuclear authorisation address:• The description and configuration of the authorised facility or action;• Requirements in respect of modification to facilities;• Operational requirements in the form of operating technical specifications, procedures or programmes as appropriate;• Maintenance testing and inspection requirements;• Operational radiation protection pro- grammes;• Radioactive waste management pro- grammes;• Emergency planning and preparedness requirements as appropriate;• Physical security;• Transport of radioactive material;• Public exposure safety assessments;• Quality assurance; and• Reporting.

Compliance Assurance and Enforcement(CAE)DivisionThe CAE division is primarily responsible for the management of all Compliance Assurance and Enforcement activities, processes and programmes for regulated nuclear technologies and actions at the NNR. This includes conducting compliance assurance inspections, audits, investigations, surveillances, environmental monitoring and sampling activities.

Applicants and authorisation holders should always be aware that the NNR will strictly enforce its mandate, at all times. Deviations from standards and regulations will not be tolerated.

and Assessments (SARA) and Compliance Assurance and Enforcement (CAE).

Standards, Authorisations, Reviews andAssessments(SARA)DivisionThe SARA Division is primarily responsible for:• Development of nuclear safety standards related to the core areas such as radiation, nuclear, waste and transport safety. Granting authorisations for nuclear installations, nuclear vessels, mining and minerals processing facilities / activities, and certificates of exemption;• Conducting safety assessments for all actions, projects, and regulated activities by reviews and assessments, and• Managing special nuclear related projects of a regulatory nature.• Developing and implementing regulatory programmes for the regulation of NPPs, fuel cycle, research reactors, NORM facilities and other actions.• Regulating the safe operation of existing holders of nuclear authorisations and preparation for applications related to nuclear expansion.• Conducting regulatory emergency pre- paredness and response, and security exercises.

RegulationofNuclearActivitiesIn accordance with the provisions of the NNR Act, the NNR is mandated to exercise regulatory control over nuclear installations, nuclear vessels and other actions capable of causing nuclear damage. The regulatory process entails authorisation, safety case review and assessment, and the undertaking of compliance assurance and enforcement activities as appropriate.

NuclearAuthorisationProcessThe applicant is required to apply to the NNR, in the prescribed format, detailing the intended activities and provide a demonstration of safety and compliance to the NNR requirements. The documentation submitted

N u c l e a r R e g u l a t o r

“We will ensure that a high level of nuclear safety,security is being maintained by all the regulatedorganisations and also strive for the continuousimprovementofourselvesandalltheholdersofnuclearauthorisations”

TheG a t e ke e p e r

Thabo J. Tselane - Pr. Sci. Nat and RPS, (NNR CEO, Acting)

M a r c h 2 0 1 3 18

G r o u p 5

M a r c h 2 0 1 3 22

“GroupFive is a diversifiedconstruction, infrastructureconcessionsandservicesgroupwithanestablishedandgrow-ing international client baseengaged in resources, energy,oilandgasandinfrastructuredelivery”.

Our construction heritage in power generation originates from Eskom’s capacity expansion program during the last quarter of the 20th Century as part of an unprecedented industrialisation program in South Africa.

Group Five answered Africa’s call for 21st Century solutions to its power generation challenges by participating in a number of cross-border IPP development programs where turnkey EPC contracting models were required in extremely challenging environments. With the introduction of the IPP and Renewable Energy programs to diversify

ByDesMuller,GMNuclearConstructionServices(adivisionofE&C)

Nuclear construction standards are based on the ISO 9001-2008 quality standard as a minimum. On areas of safety importance to nuclear, additional nuclear quality and safety management standards apply which include a “Nuclear Safety Culture” for organizations engaged in nuclear construction.

Dedicated nuclear engineering and construction standards, backed by innovative modularisation construction techniques, are the defining features of Nuclear construction that need to be realised in South Africa. The requirements, based on such standards are developed by Group Five’s Nuclear Construction Services division, which effectively aligns the Group to achieve the skills development and localisation objectives being driven by the South African government.

South Africa’s energy portfolio, Group Five were able to step up to meet the construction challenges of these innovative technologies which included the successful delivery the first large captive power plant for one of South Africa’s largest energy users based on clean natural gas. With a secured and growing portfolio of wind, solar and co-generation projects, Group Five is now preparing itself for even greater challenges in the high precision field of Nuclear construction.

Today’s Nuclear power plants demand the highest levels of quality, safety and construction excellence to ensure operational integrity and safety under the most extreme conditions, natural disasters and terrorism. Whether it’s upgrading Koeberg, building new power plants and research reactors or waste management facilities, these uncompromising quality and safety standards need to be complied with throughout the full lifecycle of the nuclear plants.

G r o u p 5

The construction force behind future generations

Group Five Engineering and Construction (Pty) Ltd Nuclear Construction Services Hampton Park, Devon House, 20 Georgian Crescent East, Bryanston 2021 I PO Box 5016, Rivonia 2128, South Africa I Tel +27 11 513 7500 I Fax +27 11 5137694 I Email tduplessis@groupfive.co.za I Website www.groupfive.co.za

391 9 7 4 - 2 0 1 3

Years as a listed entity

BRIDGINGtheNuclearConstructionGap

M a r c h 2 0 1 321

A E C O M

AECOM is a global provider of professional technical and management support services to a broad range of markets, including transportation, facilities, environmental, energy, water and government. With approximately 45 000 employees around the world, the company is a leader in all of the key markets that it serves. AECOM provides a blend of global reach, local knowledge, innovation and technical excellence in delivering solutions that create, enhance and sustain the world’s built, natural, and social environments.

A Fortune 500 company, AECOM serves clients in more than 140 countries. AECOM is committed and invested in Africa with offices in seven countries and

“We are invested and committed with a combination ofpeople,knowledge,skills,internationalandlocalexperience,fortheSouthAfricanNuclearNewBuildProgrammetofindsolutionsthroughourrangeofservices“

Indresen Pillay, AECOM Africa Chief Executive

Growth. Leveraging our global and local network, knowledge and people, enables us to offer a strategic and tactical approach to program, procurement and supply chain management as well as all aspects of project design, cost, value and risk management throughout the lifecycle of a project.

We bring lessons learned to the nuclear sector through our roles on complex programmes and projects such as new built Medupi and Kusile Power Stations, London Olympics 2012, World Cup 2010 and many other private and public programmes and projects including PPP, and we subscribe to knowledge transfer and legacy programmes.

Servicesoffered

We offer the following key services to the nuclear sector: Program Management, Project Management, Purchase & Supply Chain Engineering, Packaging / Contracting / Procurement Strategy, Project Controls, Earned Value Management / Analysis, Cost / Design / Value / Planning / Risk Management, Civil / Structural / Acoustic / Fire / Geotechnical / Security / Instrumentation / Control / Automation Engineering Design, Environmental Consultancy, Technical Due Diligence Advisory for Funders and Investors, Capital Tax Allowances and VAT Consultancy, CDM Co-ordinator, Sustainability, and Land Regeneration / Grants. These services apply to the entire lifecycle of nuclear power plants from new build construction to decommissioning.Follow AECOM on Twitter at @AECOM.

project offices in twelve African countries. AECOM has added to its existing base in South Africa its acquisition of legacy companies Davis Langdon and BKS. Together with AECOM’s local partners and owner’s, AECOM has achieved a BBBEE rating of level 3.

Dedicatedpurpose

One thing remains constant at AECOM – our Purpose: “To create, enhance and sustain the world’s built, natural and social environments.” Dedicated to this promise, our company is driven by a clear set of Core Values, which define who we are, what we do and how we do it: Integrity, Innovation, Employees, Agility, Clients, Safety, Excellence and Profitable

CLEANERw o r l d f o r t o m o r r o w

Creating a

M a r c h 2 0 1 3 22

AV E N G

TheAvengGrouphasplayeda significant role in southernAfrica, Africa and Australia’spower generation. The grouphasthecapacityandcapabilitytodeliverextensive large-scaleprojects

The group’s experience spans the

spectrum of power generation plants

from traditional coal powered to hydro

partnerships with external specialist

companies. It has the ability to craft

packages, which reduce its clients’ risk

profiles and resource requirements.

Aveng have also established a dedicated

nuclear management division to guide

and support the group in its endeavours

in the nuclear industry.

power and wind farms. It has experience

in nuclear power, having formed part

of the consortium that was awarded

the contract for the construction of the

Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, the first

nuclear power plant in South Africa in

1976. The Group has leveraged off its

significant resources to contribute to

the construction of power generation

infrastructure, including combined

group-wide skill sets as well as

g e n e r a t i o n

Photo: Koeberg Nuclear Power Station,SouthAfrica,1976-1984

POWER

M a r c h 2 0 1 3

Sebata is a dynamic, Midrand-based company that has achieved various milestones since its inception, including its methodical building of capacity - by recruiting highly experienced professionals and securing its ISO9001 and ISO14000 certification. This has driven the Group’s turnover, from its initial playing field inside the SMME sector, to R44-million in just 18 months.

Sebata are an Approved Inspection Authority (AIA) of pressure equipment fabrications and in-service maintenance work. Together with their strategic partner, Moody International SA, they provide AIA and 3rd Party inspection services to Eskom’s Medupi Power Station construction project. Their contract will continue until the power station is fully built and commissioned.

“WhilethedriverbehindSebataGroup’sbusinessmodelisthemindofanentrepreneur,itissupportedbythetechnicalknowledge, skills and capacity vested in its employees andmanagementteam”

Matome Modipa, Group Chief Executive and founder of the Sebata Group

Engineering Council of Sudan, who previously specialised in oil and gas management. Other key team members are:

• Mr T Sithole, Pr Eng: 20090372, B Sc Eng Electrical, MBA • Mr T Mafika, Pr Eng: 20070263, B Sc & M Sc (Electrical) Eng, M Eng. (Project Management) • Mr I Mkhinze, B Sc.Eng (Chemi- cal), M.Eng.(Industrial), MBA • Dr. Shael Harris, SACNASP – Pr. Nat. Sci (Environmental & Marine Science), BSc Honours, MSc Marine Biology, PhD Marine Biology, Environmental Management, Marine Science

This team provides a range of consulting, development and lead services in engineering project management and support, which are listed in the table below.

In addition, Sebata, as a strategic partner to Mott MacDonald, have been awarded rail and marine engineering contracts for various Transnet capital projects. These projects, which will run until 2015, are currently work-in-progress.

The company has also been successful in completing projects in the aviation, defense, infrastructure development, mining and petrochemical industries. This makes the company’s expansion into the nuclear energy industry a natural progression. And, to this end, it should be noted that Sebata is in the process of securing registration as a service provider on the Koeberg supplier database.

Sebata’s engineering team is headed by chief engineer, Mr EIA Ibrahim,

Sebata’sholisticand integratedbusinessapproach to engineeringprojects, problemprevention,resolutionandsolutionimplementationistoconsidertheentirechain,tounderstandingtheinterrelationshipdynamicsofpeople,processesandtechnologyinthesystemandtoensurethatwhiletheproblemisbeingsolvedanotherisnotbeingcreated.Stringentqualitymeasureshavetobeputinplacetoensurethatthishappens–allofthetime.

“Businessisallaboutextractingandaddingvalue,andbeingeffective.Thisiswhatwedo”,saysMatomeModipa,GroupChiefExecutiveandfounderoftheSebataGroup.

CapableMorethan

SEBATA GROUP OF COMPANIES ENGINEERING LEAD SERVICES

No. SHERQ ENGINNERING INSTITUTE TECHNOLOGY

1. AIA ProjectManagement HumanCapitalDevelopment ITSystemIntegration

2. Environmental MaintenancePlanning WorkManagementand ImpactAssessment Scheduling(BPS

3. GeneralSafety Operationssupportand Operationsoptimisation Practicesaudits improvement andstrategy andassessments

4. SiteSafetyOfficers AssetManagement TrainingandDevelopment

5. ManagementSystem EnergyManagement

6. SHELegalCompliance SparesAssessment Assessments andManagement

7. Non-statutoryequipment QualityInspections

23

S E B ATA

M a r c h 2 0 1 3

Sebata Nuclear Sebata Group of Companies fosters the African spirits of Ubuntu and Letsema and promotes a healthy and mutually beneficial

environment for all… you included.

The power of collective energy is highly valued at Sebata as it

assist in achieving an optimal collaboration with industry

stakeholders to realise a new generation of safe, economical and clean Nuclear Power.

Our collective expertise and operational excellence enables us to provide products and services of unparalleled safety, efficiency and economic advantage.

Services: * Engineering, Procurement and

Construction Management (EPCM)

* Operations and Maintenance (O&M)

* Approved Inspection Authority (AIA)

(In process)

* Quality Management, Assurance &

Control

* Safety Management

* Environmental Management

* Business Optimisation

* Risk Management

* Skills Development & Localisation

* Nuclear Safety Culture Enhancement

* Regulatory Compliance

Expertise:

* Collectively, Sebata has acquired vast experience in Auto

Manufacturing, Oil & Gas, Mining, Telecommunications, both

Conventional & Nuclear Power, Rail and Marine.

* We actively participate in skills development & localisation as a contribution to ourselves, our clients and the lives of all South Africans.

* We’ve got an impressive track record of projects and clients, including some of the biggest names in Government and Private enterprise.

* We’ve made constructive efforts to court the most qualified and experienced people to apply their expertise to projects with an understanding of the technical, political, and social as-pects of the African context.

Bateleur Building, Ground Floor, Hertford Office Park, 90 Bekker Road, Vorna Valley, Midrand www.sebatagroup.com

Office: 010 060 0355

Capable

M z e s i

M z e s i

M a r c h 2 0 1 3 26

A privately owned company established in 1975, Wetback has consistently provided highquality service to SouthernAfrica’s petrochemical, chemical,mining, mineral processing andpower generation industries.

Our philosophy is to safely meet

the client’s challenges, deliver to

specification, on time, under budget

and with no compromise to quality.

Specialist in our field, Wetback

boasts over 850 successfully

completed projects with an industry

leading safety record .

Services offered:• Supply, fabrication, installation and testing of piping

systems (various alloys and plastics), • Shutdown & maintenance services, • Structural steel, • Plate work, • Pressure vessels, • Fired heaters,• Other mechanical equipment,

paint and corrosion protection

Qualifications:• ISO 9001:2008• Level 3 BBBEE with

137.5% valueadded supplierstatus.

Wetback Contracts (Pty) Ltd

Tel: +27(0)11 392 8000

Fax: +27(0)11 392 5856

E-mail: info@wetback.co.za

www.wetback.co.za

Piping and Mechanical Specialist

Want it done RIGHT

the first time?

Speak to the specialist.Safety, quality & performance... guaranteed

R o s a t o m

Despite the differences inopinionsandapproaches,todayno one can deny that nuclearpower continues to play animportant role for mankind bygenerating around 13% of theworld’selectricity.

Throughout the past 10 years, in the global energy sector we have definitively established that the balance of energy in the world cannot and must not be one-sided: the volatility that hydrocarbon markets are hit by, when CO2 emissions rise, mean that it is essential to develop alternative generation methods. These factors are pushing the governments of many countries to deploy programmes for building up nuclear power. I am not simply talking about countries and regions that are the growth centres of energy consumption, e.g. the BRICS

power plant will be equipped with a combination of highly effective systems, both active and passive. Safety must be all-encompassing.

That’s not all. Requirements for the effectiveness of nuclear power are also growing. Countries want to extend the service life of their existing NPPs and reduce the cost and construction periods for new plants. These requirements result in very difficult tasks for vendor companies, but on the whole they are positive for the market because they force us to be even more effective, flexible and competitive.

nations and the Asian Tigers, but also countries like the United Kingdom, which in recent years has transformed from a major exporter of oil and gas into a net energy importer. Efforts to ensure energy security together with growing environmental protection requirements are powerful factors that are driving the development of national nuclear power programmes. The trend that we continue to observe today – the construction of new NPP power units – will certainly continue in the future. A completely different matter is that what is required from the nuclear power industry is steadily growing. Above all this is to do with safe technology. Safety requirements were always tough, but after Fukushima they became even stricter; now clients automatically expect that their new

i n t e n s i f i e d

By Kirill Komarov, Deputy DirectorGeneral for International Business andDevelopment,Rosatom

The use of nuclear energy has

www.westinghousenuclear.com

Westinghouse is committed to bringing South Africa the nuclear capacity it needs to meet growing electricity demand. Westinghouse technology is the basis for approximate-ly one-half of the world’s nuclear power plants, including Eskom’s Koeberg facilities. From our offi ce in Cape Town, Westinghouse supports the Koeberg reactors and the local nuclear industry. Our history and experience in South Africa has created a deep respect for the South African nuclear and electric power industry.

As South Africa continues to develop solutions for meeting its energy needs, Westinghouse will be there to bring a new generation of safe, clean and reliable nuclear energy online. The AP1000 nuclear power plant makes use of modern, modular-con-struction techniques — enabling shorter construction times, lowering construction costs and bringing opportunities to local suppliers. The South African new build market pro-vides a major business opportunity for the South African supply chain through our “buy where we build” business strategy. Studies have shown that the South African supply chain could provide up to 70 percent of the material, product and service requirements of an AP1000 new build program.

The AP1000 is ideally suited to the South African nuclear market. Rather than relying on active components such as diesel generators and pumps, the AP1000 relies on the natural forces of gravity, natural circulation and compressed gases to prevent over-heating in the highly unlikely event of an accident. Even with no operator action and a complete loss of all on-site and off-site AC power, the AP1000 will safely shut down and remain cool. Due to its passive safety design, the AP1000 has a smaller footprint and signifi cantly less components than typical nuclear power plants, which also helps to reduce maintenance costs.

In addition to the AP1000, Westinghouse offers a wide range of nuclear products and services. Nearly 14,000 Westinghouse employees worldwide develop value-added engineering products and services within our four core product lines—nuclear services, nuclear fuel, nuclear automation, and nuclear power plants. Our products and services are typically utilized in the nuclear industry, but are also available to the local power, petrochemical and related industries in South Africa. We can handle multi-disciplinary projects in an effi cient and professional manner with a strong customer focus due to our local and global availability of experts. No company is more committed to supporting operating nuclear power plants than Westinghouse.

Westinghouse is committed to partneringwith South Africa to deploy the mostadvanced commercial nuclear technology

Nuclear Power Plants | Services | Automation | Fuel

www.westinghousenuclear.com

Westinghouse is committed to bringing South Africa the nuclear capacity it needs to meet growing electricity demand. Westinghouse technology is the basis for approximate-ly one-half of the world’s nuclear power plants, including Eskom’s Koeberg facilities. From our offi ce in Cape Town, Westinghouse supports the Koeberg reactors and the local nuclear industry. Our history and experience in South Africa has created a deep respect for the South African nuclear and electric power industry.

As South Africa continues to develop solutions for meeting its energy needs, Westinghouse will be there to bring a new generation of safe, clean and reliable nuclear energy online. The AP1000 nuclear power plant makes use of modern, modular-con-struction techniques — enabling shorter construction times, lowering construction costs and bringing opportunities to local suppliers. The South African new build market pro-vides a major business opportunity for the South African supply chain through our “buy where we build” business strategy. Studies have shown that the South African supply chain could provide up to 70 percent of the material, product and service requirements of an AP1000 new build program.

The AP1000 is ideally suited to the South African nuclear market. Rather than relying on active components such as diesel generators and pumps, the AP1000 relies on the natural forces of gravity, natural circulation and compressed gases to prevent over-heating in the highly unlikely event of an accident. Even with no operator action and a complete loss of all on-site and off-site AC power, the AP1000 will safely shut down and remain cool. Due to its passive safety design, the AP1000 has a smaller footprint and signifi cantly less components than typical nuclear power plants, which also helps to reduce maintenance costs.

In addition to the AP1000, Westinghouse offers a wide range of nuclear products and services. Nearly 14,000 Westinghouse employees worldwide develop value-added engineering products and services within our four core product lines—nuclear services, nuclear fuel, nuclear automation, and nuclear power plants. Our products and services are typically utilized in the nuclear industry, but are also available to the local power, petrochemical and related industries in South Africa. We can handle multi-disciplinary projects in an effi cient and professional manner with a strong customer focus due to our local and global availability of experts. No company is more committed to supporting operating nuclear power plants than Westinghouse.

Westinghouse is committed to partneringwith South Africa to deploy the mostadvanced commercial nuclear technology

Nuclear Power Plants | Services | Automation | Fuel

31

Objective Realities of Nuclear Energy

M a r c h 2 0 1 3

is contained in current planning schedules. We need reliable, affordable base-load power. We need to know that the large scale power needed to drive industry is really going to be available, and not subject to the vagaries of Mother Nature.

Currently most of South Africa‘s electricity is produced by burning coal. A snag is that the coal is essentially all in the north eastern part of the country, in the Mpumalanga and northern KwaZulu-Natal coal fields. Strategically this is problematic. Koeberg nuclear power station supplies about half the electricity of the Western Cape, but the other half comes from ‘the other side of Pretoria,’ where the coalfields are. The distance from Pretoria to Cape Town is the same as the distance from London to Rome. Imagine the risk if London drew half its power from Rome.

For strategic security we must produce more base-load power in the southern part of the country, and the only practical way to do this is with nuclear power. Don’t kid yourself that wind and solar power will do it, they won’t. A very common piece of disinformation, which appears with monotonous regularity, is for wind energy output to be quoted as ‘installed capacity,’ but this figure is not what you actually get. Historic evidence shows that you only get about 15% of the ‘installed capacity’ figure. On days when there is little or no wind you get zero, so all ‘installed’ wind power capacity figures have to have an equal size back-up supply available, such as coal or nuclear power. Wind is also much more expensive that coal or nuclear, and a wind turbine has a projected life of some 20 years compared to nuclear plant of 50 years plus.

A conference to address South Africa‘s current position concerning the new nuclear build programme will be held in Midrand from 18 to 20 March. The Nuclear Africa 2013 conference will be addressed by Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe and Minister of Energy Dipuo Peters. The Deputy President was appointed as Chair of the National Nuclear Energy Executive Coordinating Committee (NNEECC) to give impetus to the wide ranging nature of the significant collaboration required across a wide front. The major international nuclear

The country in Europe with the highestproportionofwindenergyinitsnationalenergy mix is Denmark. What is notusuallypointedoutisthatDenmarkalsohasthehighestelectricitypriceinEurope.France, which has the lowest electricityprice, has almost 80% nuclear power inits electricity mix. That comparison isworthcontemplating.

Germany has the largest amount of wind energy in Europe, in terms of installed capacity. Unfortunately for them their wind energy has not been performing to the romantic expectations that were projected some time ago. Figures for German wind performance came out last year, and over the past decade they achieved a load factor of 16,3% of the theoretical maximum output of the installed wind power. This is about half the performance that was projected a decade ago. Only half! Imagine if other major engineering endeavours such as factories, airports and water supply systems ended up delivering only half the planned output. To add to the problem the wind energy output varies from unpredictable highs, to lows of essentially zero.

So in August 2012 the Germans opened a new coal-fired power station in Cologne. They also announced plans for the rapid construction of an additional 23 coal-fired plants. Interestingly this news was hardly reported. Reports from the UK have showed similar disappointing wind power results. The large UK offshore wind farm, the London Array, was supposed to deliver substantial ‘green’ wind energy to the Olympic Games. It failed to do so, but this was hardly mentioned. So to keep the lights on at the Games the UK continued to import nuclear power from France, via cables under the North Sea. The nuclear power is reliable, and cheaper than wind power.South Africa now needs to firmly move ahead with the construction of the additional 9600MW of nuclear power that

NUCLEAR ENERGY The Objective Realities of Photo:KoebergNuclearPowerStation

32M a r c h 2 0 1 3

Objective Realities of Nuclear Energy

vendors will also be presenting their capabilities at Nuclear Africa 2013, as will South African companies.

South Africa is one of the oldest nuclear countries in the world, having been in the business for over 65 years, we are not ‘new kids on the block’ in this respect. Our nuclear scientists and engineers enjoy international recognition, of the highest grade.

The construction of the envisioned nuclear power plants in South Africa involves billions of Rands. It is essential that a very large proportion of this money stays in the country. South Africa possesses much of the required construction and fabrication capability already, but many companies do not realise that they are potential players in the nuclear game. Our biggest challenge is that our own industrialists need to get organised. They need to realise the nuclear project potential, and to become part of it.

Nuclear construction and fabrication requires operations to be carried out to nuclear quality specifications. In many instances companies need to start acquiring a nuclear frame of mind, and then to overlay this onto their existing operations. Inter alia, this nuclear frame of mind requires the keeping of accurate records so that if some component fails, way in the future, its fabrication history can be traced, to try to establish if there was any fault in the design or fabrication. The actual cost of building a complex nuclear power plant is very much related to establishing and maintaining really good quality project management. South Africa is currently building the largest coal-fired power plants in the world. There is no reason to imagine that taking project management control of the construction of a nuclear plant is beyond the ability of South Africans.

Clearly the collaboration of significant foreign partners is essential but we do not have to hand our nuclear construction soul to others. Currently there is an estimate that South Africa could construct and fabricate some 50% of a large nuclear plant. In fact possibly even more. However to achieve this we need to start now to plan for the local content. The government has indicated that there will be a ‘fleet approach’ to the construction of nuclear plant. What this means is that when decisions are made as to which type of nuclear plant will be built then that decision will be applicable to the next three power stations and beyond.

Each power station will comprise two or three reactors, so a build decision will define the components required for six to nine reactors. In fact the plan is for South Africa to export components to nuclear plants all over the world. An approach is to choose the nuclear plant components ideal for local manufacture, and then to gear up to be a world supplier. In this way the production volume can be generated to induce local companies to tool-up and gain the skills required. Companies need to adopt and absorb a nuclear culture. This is similar to other industrial cultures such as aircraft component manufacture, or pharmaceutical production. Processes related to quality assurance, elimination of contamination, adherence to precise manufacturing steps, maintenance of records and similar, need to become second nature.

Companies of all sizes can get into the nuclear family. If very small companies wish to adopt the nuclear culture and manufacture just one or two components they can get into the export of nuclear products. Already Korea has identified over 300 components for nuclear plant which can be manufactured in South Africa, if companies produce to nuclear specification. Nuclear specification is related to technical competence but also to a state of mind, just like maintaining sterile conditions in a pharmaceutical plant is very much a state of mind. A lapse in maintaining sterile conditions can contaminate an entire production run, and damage a company’s credibility.

The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mr Yukiya Amano visited South Africa in mid-February. He was in South Africa as part of an Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) mission. The purpose of this mission was for international experts to conduct an independent assessment of South Africa‘s nuclear infrastructure and readiness to pursue major new nuclear developments. The INIR had been invited to carry out the assessment by the South African government. Amano said that this action demonstrated South Africa‘s commitment to pursuing a responsible programme, in a transparent manner. He urged South Africans to have more self confidence in regard to nuclear plant construction. Amano also stated that 21 African countries had indicated an intention to investigate a nuclear power future, with some 10 having started the process of laying the legal and procedural ground work. These actions are based on the current developmental work being carried out around the world on small reactors of about 10% the size of large conventional reactors. There is a potential nuclear future for all of Africa.

We need to build national pride in our ability to become world players in nuclear power. There is a huge amount of money to be earned by becoming a significant nuclear exporter.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

SouthAfricanfabricatedfuelballforaHighTemperatureGasReactor

ThisarticlewrittenbyDrKelvinKemmandwasoriginallypublishedinBusinessReport;3March2013

M a r c h 2 0 1 333

M u r r a y & R o b e r t s

is a driver of opportunity

South Africa is exploring the development of new nuclear capacity to enable economic growth while meeting Government’s commitment to lowering the country’s carbon footprint.

Murray & Roberts Group Chief Executive, Henry Laas comments, “Energy is a driver of opportunity and clean, safe and affordable energy is essential for the future prosperity of

South Africa. Nuclear power will be an critical part of the energy mix required for our country’s growth and upliftment.”

Murray & Roberts has played a key role in constructing much of South Africa’s existing power station infrastructure over the past 50 years and has developed extensive nuclear capabilities through its participation in South Africa’s past nuclear power generation projects.

Fifty years ago Murray & Roberts designed and built the Pelindaba Nuclear Facility outside Pretoria, which included South Africa’s first nuclear reactor. The project was delivered and commissioned within its five year schedule and budget. Murray & Roberts went on to engineer and construct much of the remainder of the Pelindaba facility, including its uranium enrichment capability.

In 1976 Murray & Roberts began construction on Eskom’s Koeberg Nuclear Power Station in Cape Town. The facility provides much of the city’s power and has two 900MW units; the first unit was synchronized to the grid on April, 4 1984 and the second on July, 25 1984. Koeberg has a pressurized water reactor design and is ranked as one of the world’s safest.

Murray & Roberts also participated in Eskom’s PBMR project to provide Generation IV nuclear technology to South Africa and was a shortlisted bidder in Eskom’s Nuclear 1 project to build the country’s second nuclear power plant.

Currently, Murray & Roberts is playing a pivotal role in the development of South Africa’s new power station infrastructure with major involvement in the construction of the Medupi and Kusile power stations. These power stations are amongst the largest dry-cooled thermal power stations in the world.

Murray & Roberts Projects, in partnership with Hitachi, is responsible for the boiler mechanical portion of the works, comprising 12 units of about 800 megawatt electrical (MWe) each. The Murray & Roberts scope includes structural steel fabrication, erection and mechanical installation works for both power stations. Murray & Roberts leads the civil joint venture for the Medupi project and Concor Civils, in joint venture, constructed the chimneys and silo contracts for both the Medupi and Kusile projects.

Murray & Roberts is South Africa’s leading engineering, contracting and construction services company. It has created employment, developed skills, applied technology and delivered infrastructure throughout South and Southern Africa. Murray & Roberts has proven skills and capabilities to deliver infrastructure, enabling sustainable economic and social development in South Africa.

Murray & Roberts Group Chief Executive, Henry Laas1

Energy

Murray & Roberts is South Africa’s leading engineering, contracting and construction services company. The company offers civil, mechanical, electrical, mining and process engineering; general building, construction and infrastructure development services in the global underground mining market and selected emerging markets in the natural resources and infrastructure sectors.

The company operates in Southern Africa, Middle East, Southeast Asia, Australasia and North and South America. The company is based in Johannesburg South Africa, where it has a public listing on the JSE Limited.

Murray & Roberts is a group of world-class companies and brands aligned to the same purpose and vision, and guided by the same set of values.

More information is available at www.murrob.com

111 years: 1902 to 2013

Murray & Roberts Client ServiceTel: +27(011) 456-1144Fax: +27 (086) 637-0113Email: clientservice@murrob.com

MEDUPI ADVERT A4 2013.indd 1 2013/03/10 11:04 AM

18,19 and 20 March 2013Accolades Boutique Hotel, Midrand, Gauteng, SouthAfrica

Organised by:

Headline Sponsors:

Platinum Sponsor:

Cocktail Sponsor:

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

NuclearBKcover.pdf 1 3/12/13 7:40 PM